您的位置：山东大学 -> 科技期刊社 -> 《山东大学学报（医学版）》

山东大学学报 (医学版) ›› 2023, Vol. 61 ›› Issue (3): 90-96.doi: 10.6040/j.issn.1671-7554.0.2022.1217

• 临床医学 • 上一篇    

中国人适应性腰椎微创通道:基于CT影像学测量下的解剖数据分析

赵赓1*,买若鹏1*,赵景才2,刘新宇1   

  1. 1.山东大学齐鲁医院骨科, 山东 济南 250012;2.山东省第二康复医院骨科, 山东 泰安 271000
  • 发布日期:2023-03-24
  • 通讯作者: 刘新宇. E-mail:newyuliu@163.com*共同第一作者
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(81874022)

Minimally invasive channel of the lumbar spine surgery for Chinese: anatomical data based on CT imaging measurements

ZHAO Geng1*, MAI Ruopeng1*, ZHAO Jingcai2, LIU Xinyu1   

  1. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan 250012, Shandong, China;
    2. Department of Orthopedics, The Second Rehabilitation Hospital of Shandong Province, Taian 271000, Shandong, China
  • Published:2023-03-24

PDF (PC)

34

摘要： 目的 测量正常中国人群中腰椎相关影像学数据,为国人腰椎经皮置钉微创减压手术通道的设计提供解剖学数据。 方法 回顾性分析2018年至2020年行腰椎CT平扫,既往无腰椎相关疾病的门诊患者88例,其中男40例,女48例,18~38岁,平均(28.6±5.6)岁。于腰椎CT三维重建下测量微创减压手术通道相关参数包括:L1~L5关节突关节宽度、下位上关节突外缘到上位棘突根部的距离、上位椎弓根下缘与下位椎弓根上缘距离、上位椎体下缘至下位椎弓根上缘距离、上位椎弓根上缘至下一椎弓根下缘距离以及上位椎弓根下缘至下一椎弓根下缘距离等。 结果 关节突关节宽度在L4/5和L5/S1最大,为17.6 mm;下位上关节突外缘到上位棘突根部的距离在L5/S1为最大值24.9 mm;上位椎弓根下缘与下位椎弓根上缘距离在L2/3和L3/4为最大值19.5 mm;上位椎体下缘至下位椎弓根上缘距离在L2/3、L3/4为最大值11.1 mm;上位椎弓根上缘至下位椎弓根下缘距离在L1/2与L2/3为最大值48.5 mm;上位椎弓根下缘至下位椎弓根下缘之间距离在L1/2和L2/3为最大值34.0 mm。 结论 目前常用于腰椎微创减压手术的固定通道在各参数上缺乏统计学支持,可能会造成不必要的损伤,对中国青年腰椎解剖学参数的统计和研究对设计更加符合中国人的微创手术通道有重要意义。

关键词: 腰椎, 手术通道, 中国人, 影像学, 测量

Abstract: Objective To measure the imaging data of lumbar spine of Chinses, so as to provide anatomical data for the designing of a minimally invasive decompression surgery channel of lumbar vertebrae. Methods Imaging data of 88 consecutive Chinese without related diseases were evaluated, including 40 male and 48 female. Average age was(28.6±5.6)years. The related parameters measured included the width of facet joint from L1 to L5, distance from lateral edge of superior articular process of the inferior vertebra to the root of superior spinous process of the superior vertebra, distance between the lower edge of pedicle of the superior vertebra and the upper edge of pedicle of the inferior vertebra, distance between lower edge of the interverbal disc and the upper edge of pedicle of the inferior vertebra, distance between the upper edge of pedicle of the superior vertebra and the lower edge of pedicle of the inferior vertebra and distance between the lower edge of pedicle of the superior vertebra and the lower edge of pedicle of the inferior vertebra. Results The width of facet joint reached the maximum of 17.6 mm in L4/5 and L5/S1. The distance from the lateral edge of superior articular process of the inferior vertebra to the root of superior spinous process of the superior vertebra reached the maximum of 24.9 mm in L5/S1. The distance between the lower edge of the vertebra of the superior vertebra and the upper edge of pedicle of the inferior vertebra reached the maximum of 19.5 mm in L2/3 and L3/4. The distance between upper edge of the interverbal disc and the upper edge of pedicle of the inferior vertebra reached the maximum of 11.1 mm in L2/3 and L3/4. The distance between the upper edge of pedicle of the superior vertebra and the lower edge of pedicle of the inferior vertebra reached the maximum of 48.5 mm in L1/2 and L2/3. The distance between the lower edge of pedicle of the superior vertebra and the lower edge of pedicle of the inferior vertebra reached the maximum of 34.0 mm in L1/2 and L2/3. Conclusion The surgery channel for minimally invasive decompression of lumbar vertebrae for Chinses lacks statistical support in various parameters, which might cause unnecessary damage during surgery. The research of the anatomical parameters of the lumbar spine has great significance for the design of more suitable minimally invasive surgical channels for Chinese.

Key words: Lumbar, Surgical channel, Chinese, Imaging, Measurement

中图分类号: 

  • R681.5
[1] Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976), 2003, 28(15 Suppl): S26-S35.
[2] Wong AP, Smith ZA, Stadler JA, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(MI-TLIF): surgical technique, long-term 4-year prospective outcomes, and complications compared with an open TLIF cohort[J]. Neurosurg Clin N Am, 2014, 25(2): 279-304.
[3] Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care[J]. J Neurosurg, 1953, 10(2): 154-168.
[4] Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion(authors transl)[J]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb, 1982, 120(3): 343-347.
[5] Foley KT, Gupta SK. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results[J]. J Neurosurg, 2002, 97(Suppl 1): 7-12.
[6] Seng C, Siddiqui MA, Wong KP, et al. Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976), 2013, 38(23): 2049-2055.
[7] Patel AA, Zfass-Mendez M, Lebwohl NH, et al. Minimally invasive versus open lumbar fusion: a comparison of blood loss, surgical complications, and hospital course[J]. Iowa Orthop J, 2015, 35: 130-134.
[8] Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis[J]. World Neurosurg, 2014, 82(1/2): 230-238.
[9] Xie L, Wu WJ, Liang Y. Comparison between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and conventional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an updated meta-analysis[J]. Chin Med J(Engl), 2016, 129(16): 1969-1986.
[10] Barbagallo GM, Yoder E, Dettori JR, et al. Percutaneous minimally invasive versus open spine surgery in the treatment of fractures of the thoracolumbar junction: a comparative effectiveness review[J]. Evid Based Spine Care J, 2012, 3(3): 43-49.
[11] 朱友余, 邓雪飞. 腰椎微创脊柱外科研究进展[J]. 局解手术学杂志, 2017, 26(1): 69-73. ZHU Youyu, DENG Xuefei. Research progress of minimally invasive surgery for lumbar spine[J]. Journal of Regional Anatomy and Operative Surgery, 2017, 26(1): 69-73.
[12] Hu W, Tang J, Wu X, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications[J]. Int Orthop, 2016, 40(9): 1883-1890.
[13] Tabaraee E, Ahn J, Bohl DD, et al. Quantification of multifidus atrophy and fatty infiltration following a minimally invasive microdiscectomy[J]. Int J Spine Surg, 2015, 9: 25. doi:10.14444/2025.
[14] 李士学, 张为, 孙亚澎, 等. 两种通道下MIS-TLIF治疗退变性腰椎管狭窄症的对比研究[J]. 中华骨科杂志, 2019, 39(20): 1275-1284. LI Shixue, ZHANG Wei, SUN Yapeng, et al. A comparison study of two channels during MIS-TLIF in degenerative lumbar spinal Stenosis treatment[J]. Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics, 2019, 39(20): 1275-1284.
[15] Krag MH, Beynnon BD, Pope MH, et al. Depth of insertion of transpedicular vertebral screws into human vertebrae: effect upon screw-vertebra interface strength[J]. J Spinal Disord, 1988, 1(4): 287-294.
[16] Datir SP, Mitra SR. Morphometric study of the thoracic vertebral pedicle in an Indian population[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976), 2004, 29(11): 1174-1181.
[17] 韩华, 项燕, 韩佳栩, 等. 不同国家人群胸椎椎弓根解剖结构的对比研究[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2018, 36(3): 252-258. HAN Hua, XIANG Yan, HAN Jiaxu, et al. Comparative research of anatomical structures of human thoracic pedicle in different countries[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy, 2018, 36(3): 252-258.
[18] Lv Y, Chen JY, Chen JC, et al. Three-year postoperative outcomes between MIS and conventional TLIF in1-segment lumbar disc herniation[J]. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol, 2017, 26(3): 168-176.
[19] 李高峰, 郑卫东, 李光淳, 等. 成人下胸椎、腰椎椎弓根的多排螺旋CT测量与临床意义[J]. 吉林医学, 2014, 35(10): 2131-2133.
[20] 汤优, 张为, 申勇, 等. 经Quadrant通道下微创TLIF与开放TLIF治疗腰椎退变性疾病疗效的对比研究[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2012, 20(21): 1935-1938. TANG You, ZHANG Wei, SHEN Yong, et al. Retrospective clinical comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion via Quadrant minimally invasive system versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease[J]. Orthopedic Journal of China, 2012, 20(21): 1935-1938.
[21] Hammad A, Wirries A, Ardeshiri A, et al. Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis[J]. J Orthop Surg Res, 2019, 14(1): 229.
[22] Xie Q, Zhang J, Lu F, et al. Minimally invasive versus open Transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion in obese patients: a meta-analysis[J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2018, 19(1): 15.
[23] Ryu DS, Ahn SS, Kim KH, et al. Does minimally invasive fusion technique influence surgical outcomes in isthmic spondylolisthesis?[J]. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol, 2019, 28(1): 33-40.
[24] Peng P, Chen K, Chen H, et al. Comparison of O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis[J]. J Orthop Translat, 2019, 20:107-112. doi:10.1016/j.jot.2019.10.001.
[25] 李振宙, 侯树勋. 腰椎退行性疾病微创外科治疗概况及展望[J]. 中国骨与关节杂志, 2022, 11(9): 641-647. LI Zhenzhou, HOU Shuxun. Overview and prospect of minimally invasive surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases[J]. Chinese Journal of Bone and Joint, 2022, 11(9): 641-647.
[26] Roberti F, Arsenault KL. Minimally invasive tubular laminectomies in multilevel spine surgery-an illustrative case-based review of techniques and combined approaches[J]. J Spine Surg, 2021, 7(1): 83-99.
[1] 冯世庆. 计算机视觉与腰椎退行性疾病[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2023, 61(3): 1-6.
[2] 张景良, 刘新宇, 原所茂, 王连雷. 髋关节疾病合并腰椎退行性疾病(髋腰综合征)误诊误治的原因分析[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(5): 67-73.
[3] 巩雨,高震,王虎清,杨晶雯,张桂莲,展淑琴,张茹,吴海琴. 4例继发性肥大性下橄榄核变性的临床及影像学特点[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(5): 37-42.
[4] 王静,刘粉,曾荣,黄思源,许长娟,梁子婷,董亮. 以胸膜病变为特征的IgG4相关性肺疾病1例[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(3): 114-116.
[5] 李淑华,卢矫阳,潘若孜,袁兰,卢雪峰. 沟槽状胰腺炎1例[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(12): 119-121.
[6] 李祥泽,王先明,宋歌声,崔晶,孙凯,王皓晨,王天成,韩绍奇,田虎. 合并乙肝肝硬化的肝上皮样血管内皮瘤1例报道并文献复习[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(11): 89-95.
[7] 李明波,黄燕波,任东成,刘俊城,谭成双,徐继禧,丁金勇. 3种不同的腰椎内固定融合方式的有限元分析[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(1): 55-64.
[8] 许长娟,梁子婷,曾荣,黄思源,王静,董亮. 结节性硬化症合并肺淋巴管肌瘤病1例[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(8): 119-121.
[9] 曾荣,吴金香,张锦涛,上官红,周生余,田甜,董亮. 原发性肺血管肉瘤1例并文献复习[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(2): 19-25.
[10] 丁金勇,徐继禧,谭成双,刘俊城,李明波,谢炜星,任东成. 不同关节突关节不对称衡量标准的有限元评价[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 58(6): 97-103.
[11] 李海云,乔珊,崔才三. 127例颅内静脉窦血栓形成的回顾性分析[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 58(5): 77-81.
[12] 陆菁菁,夏宇. 子宫内膜异位症的影像学诊断[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2019, 57(6): 40-45.
[13] 王海峰,王峰,谭炳毅,韩世杰,徐西强,王大川. 腰椎关节突囊肿诊断与治疗方式[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2019, 57(5): 56-61.
[14] 李建民,李振峰. 腰椎肿瘤全脊椎整块切除术的进展与挑战[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2019, 57(5): 7-12.
[15] 王冰. 腰椎完全内镜经椎板间入路技术的临床教程[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2019, 57(5): 23-29.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
版权所有 © 2018 《山东大学学报(医学版)》编辑部　
地址:山东大学科技期刊社（济南市历城区山大南路27号山东大学中心校区明德楼B座721室） 电话: 0531-88366918 E-mail: xbyxb@sdu.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发